A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 11-05401.a1
Appeal BoardDecided Jul 3, 2013 · Administrative Judge Jeffrey D. Billett · Appeal
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought a trustworthiness designation under Guideline F due to financial considerations. The appeal was denied as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the initial decision, and new evidence regarding bankruptcy and work performance was not considered. The Board affirmed the denial based on the lack of harmful error claims.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not assert any harmful error in the initial decision.
- The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- F1 Financial Considerationsraised
Key rule quoted
“The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 2012-11-07
- Answer filed
- Hearing held
- 2013-04-15 after the close of the record
- Decision date
- 2013-07-03
Cite for
- Affirmation of Denial Due to Lack of Harmful Error Claims
- Limitations on New Evidence During Appeal
- Trustworthiness Concerns Under Guideline F
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant raised no issue of harmful error. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 11-05401.a1 DATE: 07/03/2013 DATE: July 3, 2013 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 11-05401
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a trustworthiness designation. On November 7, 2012, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On April 15, 2013, after the close of the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it contains new evidence which indicates that Applicant is proceeding with his bankruptcy and performs well at work. The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal. See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge denying Applicant a trustworthiness designation is AFFIRMED. Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board